Downloaded from on 12 September 2009                                EULAR Recommendations 2003: an evidence ba...
Downloaded from on 12 September 2009                                                                          ...
Downloaded from on 12 September 20091146                                                                      ...
Downloaded from on 12 September 2009EULAR Recommendations 2003 for management of knee OA                      ...
Downloaded from on 12 September 20091148                                                                      ...
Downloaded from on 12 September 2009EULAR Recommendations 2003 for management of knee OA                      ...
Downloaded from on 12 September 20091150                                                                      ...
Downloaded from on 12 September 2009EULAR Recommendations 2003 for management of knee OA                      ...
Downloaded from on 12 September 20091152                                                                      ...
Downloaded from on 12 September 2009EULAR Recommendations 2003 for management of knee OA                      ...
Downloaded from on 12 September 20091154                                                                      ...
Eular oa knee
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Eular oa knee


Published on

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Eular oa knee"

  1. 1. Downloaded from on 12 September 2009 EULAR Recommendations 2003: an evidence based approach to the management of knee osteoarthritis: Report of a Task Force of the Standing Committee for International Clinical Studies Including Therapeutic Trials (ESCISIT) K M Jordan, N K Arden, M Doherty, B Bannwarth, J W J Bijlsma, P Dieppe, K Gunther, H Hauselmann, G Herrero-Beaumont, P Kaklamanis, S Lohmander, B Leeb, M Lequesne, B Mazieres, E Martin-Mola, K Pavelka, A Pendleton, L Punzi, U Serni, B Swoboda, G Verbruggen, I Zimmerman-Gorska and M Dougados Ann Rheum Dis 2003;62;1145-1155 doi:10.1136/ard.2003.011742 Updated information and services can be found at: These include: References This article cites 74 articles, 23 of which can be accessed free at: 82 online articles that cite this article can be accessed at: responses You can respond to this article at: Email alerting Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article - sign up in the box at the service top right corner of the articleTopic collections Articles on similar topics can be found in the following collections Degenerative joint disease (3049 articles) Musculoskeletal syndromes (4643 articles) Osteoarthritis (767 articles) NotesTo order reprints of this article go to: subscribe to Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases go to:
  2. 2. Downloaded from on 12 September 2009 1145 EXTENDED REPORTEULAR Recommendations 2003: an evidence basedapproach to the management of knee osteoarthritis: Reportof a Task Force of the Standing Committee for InternationalClinical Studies Including Therapeutic Trials (ESCISIT)K M Jordan, N K Arden, M Doherty, B Bannwarth, J W J Bijlsma, P Dieppe, K Gunther,H Hauselmann, G Herrero-Beaumont, P Kaklamanis, S Lohmander, B Leeb, M Lequesne,B Mazieres, E Martin-Mola, K Pavelka, A Pendleton, L Punzi, U Serni, B Swoboda, G Verbruggen,I Zimmerman-Gorska, M Dougados............................................................................................................................... Ann Rheum Dis 2003;62:1145–1155. doi: 10.1136/ard.2003.011742 Objectives: To update the EULAR recommendations for management of knee osteoarthritis (OA) by an evidence based medicine and expert opinion approach. Methods: The literature search and guidelines were restricted to treatments for knee OA pertaining to clinical and/or radiological OA of any compartment of the knee. Papers for combined treatment of knee and other types of OA were excluded. Medline and Embase were searched using a combination of subject headings and key words. Searches for those treatments previously investigated were conducted for January 1999 to February 2002 and for those treatments not previously investigated for 1966 to February 2002. The level of evidence found for each treatment was documented. Quality scores were determined for each paper, an effect size comparing the treatment with placebo was calculated, where possible, and aSee end of article for toxicity profile was determined for each treatment modality.authors’ affiliations Results: 497 new publications were identified by the search. Of these, 103 were intervention trials and....................... included in the overall analysis, and 33 treatment modalities were identified. Previously identifiedCorrespondence to: publications which were not exclusively knee OA in the initial analysis were rejected. In total, 545Professor M Dougados, publications were included. Based on the results of the literature search and expert opinion, 10Institut de Rhumatologie, recommendations for the treatment of knee OA were devised using a five stage Delphi technique. BasedHardy B, Hopital Cochin27, rue du Faubourg Saint- on expert opinion, a further set of 10 items was identified by a five stage Delphi technique as important forJacques, 75014 Paris, future research.France; m.doug@cch. Conclusion: The updated recommendations support some of the previous propositions published in but also include modified statements and new propositions. Although a large number of treatment optionsAccepted 21 July 2003 for knee OA exist, the evidence based format of the EULAR Recommendations continues to identify key....................... clinical questions that currently are unanswered.O steoarthritis (OA) is the most common form of mechanical factors (for example, trauma, occupational and arthritis in Western populations. It is characterised recreational usage, alignment).6 7 There is a significant genetic pathologically by both focal loss of articular cartilage component to the prevalence of knee OA, with heritabilityand marginal and central new bone formation. OA of the estimates from twin studies of 0.39–0.65 independent ofknee, the principal large joint to be affected, results in known environmental or demographic confounders.8disabling knee symptoms in an estimated 10% of people older Knee OA is associated with symptoms of pain andthan 55 years, a quarter of whom are severely disabled.1 The functional disability. Physical disability arising from painrisk of disability attributable to knee OA alone is as great as and loss of functional capacity reduces quality of life andthat due to cardiac disease and greater than that due to any increases the risk of further morbidity and mortality. Currentother medical disorder in the elderly.2 A recent World Health treatments aim at alleviating these symptoms by severalOrganisation report on the global burden of disease indicates different methods:that knee OA is likely to become the fourth most importantglobal cause of disability in women and the eighth most N Non-pharmacological treatments (for example, education, exercise, lifestyle changes)important in men.3 The annual costs attributable to knee OAare immense. There is therefore a burden on health from bothmorbidity and cost. Radiographic evidence of knee OA in N Pharmacological treatments (for example, paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), topicalmen and women aged over 65 is reported in 30% of subjects,4 treatments)around one third of whom are symptomatic. Annualarthroplasty rates in Europeans over the age of 65 vary fromcountry to country but are of the order of 0.5–0.7 per 1000.5 ................................................................ The aetiology of knee OA is multifactorial and includes Abbreviations: ES, effect size; HA, hyaluronic acid; NSAIDs, non-both generalised constitutional factors (for example, aging, steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; OA, osteoarthritis; QS, quality score;sex, obesity, heredity, reproductive variables) and local adverse RCT, randomised controlled trial; TKR, total knee replacement
  3. 3. Downloaded from on 12 September 20091146 Jordan, Arden, Doherty, et alN Invasive interventions (for example, intra-articular injec- tions, lavage, arthroplasty). those combining hip and knee OA were excluded. The previous literature search included papers combining hip and knee OA in its qualitative data; these were reviewed and if The objectives of management are to: the results for hip and knee OA could not be separated fromN Educate the patient about OA and its management one another, the publication was rejected.N Alleviate pain Quality scoring of manuscriptsN Improve function and decrease disability The methodological design of each study was scoredN Prevent or retard progression of the disease and its consequences. according to a predetermined proforma.12 This methodologi- cal checklist provided a quality assessment of the information Current evidence to support the various treatments in provided by each individual publication, particularly address-current use, however, is very variable. ing study design and methodology and the statistical power Guidelines on the management of knee and hip OA have of each study. Studies were scored 0–1 for 26 questions andbeen published by the Royal College of Physicians9 and the 0–2 for one question, giving a maximum total of 28. PowerAmerican College of Rheumatology.10 In 1998, EULAR calculations were scored as 1 if present and 0 if absent. Ifcommissioned a steering group to review the evidence for probability values were reported in the results, a score of 1the treatment of knee OA. Recommendations for treatment was given and 0 if absent. A single assessor scored Englishwere developed as a result of this evidence based review and language publications and a second assessor validated thesepresented in 2000.11 These guidelines, however, were scores in a blinded fashion. Non-English European languagerestricted to a limited number of treatment modalities and publications were assessed by individual members of theonly reviewed evidence up until December 1998. We there- EULAR steering group committee fluent in the language offore have updated the recommendations by extending the the publication. All quality scores were collected and recordedliterature search to February 2002 and by including all centrally.treatments used in knee OA. Estimation of a treatment effect sizeMETHODS Quantitative analysis of treatment effect was assessed, where possible, by calculating the effect size (ES) for validatedMembership of guidelines steering group committeeThe members of the expert committee on knee OA outcome measures of pain and function. A software package was used for this purpose.13 An ES is the standardised meanreconvened in November 2001 to establish the methodologyin updating the evidence base and recommendations for the difference between a treatment group and a control group for an outcome variable14—in this case, pain and function. Ittreatment of knee OA. The initiative, endorsed by ESCISIT,involved a committee of experts in OA (19 rheumatologists, reflects the magnitude of difference between two groups in standardised terms and is free of units. The mean andfour orthopaedic surgeons) and one research fellow from 13European countries. distribution of values for the baseline placebo and active The aims of the committee were: treatment, and end point placebo and active treatment, and difference from baseline to end point were tabulated for eachN To describe all the therapeutic modalities used in the treatment of knee OA and to review the current level of of the outcome measures recorded. The ES and data displayed in this paper in all cases are evidence attributable to each of these treatments calculated against placebo. Clinically, an ES of 0.2 isN To produce a list of 10 recommendations for the manage- ment of knee OA and to examine the degree to which considered small, 0.5 is moderate (and would be recognised clinically), and greater then 0.8 is large. All data were these recommendations are supported both by research collected and recorded centrally. evidence and the consensus of expert opinion Categorising evidenceN To specify 10 recommendations for the future research agenda for the management of knee OA. Categories of evidence were adapted from the classification of the United States Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. Evidence was categorised according to study designEvidence based review reflecting susceptibility to bias. Table 2 shows the categoriesSearch strategy in descending order of importance. Questions posed by theTo maintain continuity from the previous search, Medline recommendations were answered using the best evidenceOVID and BIDS Embase were the databases searched available. If, for example, a question could be answered bysystematically. The searches for those treatment modalities category 1 evidence then weaker design publications were notpreviously investigated were conducted for the period reviewed.January 1999 to February 2002 and for those modalities notpreviously investigated from 1966 to February 2002. In the Strength of recommendationsearch strategy, all English and other European language The strength of recommendation for an intervention waspublications in the form of systematic reviews, meta- graded A-D (table 3) by members of the editing subcommit-analyses, randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled tee of the task force, after examination of the evidence intrials, and observational studies were included. Publications detail. The strength of recommendations is based not only onin non-European languages were excluded. the level of evidence but also upon consideration of the following: the ES of the intervention; the side effect profile;Selection of manuscripts the applicability of the evidence to the population of interest;All trials that assessed the effects of a treatment for knee OA practicality of delivery; and economic considerations. In thison pain and/or function were included. Thirty three such way the different treatments could be scored in a pragmaticindividual treatment modalities were identified; NSAIDs are manner more applicable to everyday clinical practice.divided into two subsets, conventional (non-selective)NSAIDs and COX 2 selective NSAIDs (coxibs), but overall Assessment by expert panel opinionrecognised as one group (table 1). For the purpose of the Experts’ opinion approachreview knee OA was defined as patients with clinical and/or After informing the expert committee about the results of theradiological evidence of knee OA. Only papers exclusively literature search and the level of evidence found for eachstudying knee OA were included at all stages of the analysis; treatment modality, two sets of 10 recommendations
  4. 4. Downloaded from on 12 September 2009EULAR Recommendations 2003 for management of knee OA 1147 Table 1 Treatment modalities identified for the treatment of knee OA Non-pharmacological Pharmacological Intra-articular Surgical Education Paracetamol Corticosteroid Arthroscopy Exercise NSAIDs Hyaluronic acid Osteotomy Insoles Opioid analgesics Tidal irrigation UKR Orthotic devices Sex hormones TKR Weight loss SYSADOA Laser Psychotropic drugs Spa Topical NSAID Telephone Topical capsaicin Vitamins/minerals Pulsed EMF Ultrasound TENS Acupuncture Nutrients Herbal remedies EMF, electromagnetic field therapy; TENS, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation; NSAIDs, non-steroidal anti- inflammatory drugs; SYSADOA, SYmptomatic Slow Acting Drugs for OA (includes avocado/soybean unsaponifiables (ASU), chondroitin, diacerein and glucosamine); UKR, unicompartmental knee replacement; TKR, total knee replacement.proposed following a five stage Delphi technique:(a) the final the tabular analysis. Table 4 outlines the different treatmentexpert evidence and opinion based recommendations for modalities with quality scores and effect sizes where theytreatment, and (b) recommendations for future research could be calculated. Table 5 outlines the level of evidence foragendas. each and also the strength of recommendation from the expert panel.Toxicity profile A large number of trials examined NSAIDs. 135 NSAIDOnce the definitive list of the treatments and their level of trials were included in this analysis, but only 35 of these hadevidence was communicated, the committee ranked the a placebo arm and the ES could only be calculated in five ofpotential toxicity of each intervention. This was expressed as these. Median quality scores were much higher for the newera 100 mm visual analogue scale, in which 0 was ‘‘not toxic at coxib trials than for trials investigating conventional NSAIDs.all’’ and 100 was ‘‘very toxic’’. Figure 1 shows the results Quality scores varied enormously for many of the inter-obtained. ventions. Those studies conducted more recently tended to be It was felt by members of the panel after the initial opinion of a higher design quality. Median quality scores werehad been sought that the NSAID group should be subdivided highest for glucosamine and chondroitin sulphate trials andinto conventional NSAIDs and coxibs. This was therefore lowest for the surgical trials, tending to parallel the level ofperformed at a later meeting. evidence found for each modality. Of the 33 treatment modalities, 29 were supported byLevel of evidence of the experts’ opinion approach evidence from at least one RCT and were graded as either 1AThe researchers who undertook the literature search eval- or 1B for category of evidence. Of the surgical trials, onlyuated the level of evidence in order to answer the questions those assessing arthroscopy¡debridement were supported byposed by the 10 recommendations for management of knee evidence from RCTs.OA as proposed by the panel.RESULTS Toxicity profileEvidence based approach NSAIDs, opioid analgesics, and psychotropic antidepressant497 new publications were identified by the search strategy. drugs were regarded as having a similar toxicity profile inOf these, 103 were intervention trials and therefore included long term use to that of joint replacement the overall analysis; 99 of these were intervention trials When NSAIDs were subdivided into conventional andusing at least one of the 33 treatment modalities identified, 3 coxib groups, the results showed that the perceived meanwere systematic reviews, and 1 was a meta-analysis. The toxicity of non-selective NSAIDs was 51 mm and the coxibpreviously identified publications were also reviewed and mean 41 mm on a 100 mm visual analogue scale.those that were not exclusively knee OA in the initial analysiswere rejected. In total, 545 publications were included. Experts’ opinion approachTreatments that are no longer in use (for example, Tables 6 and 7 summarise the final recommendations forglycosaminoglycan polyscaccharides) were not included in management and future research agenda as proposed by the expert committee. Table 2 Categories of evidence Table 3 Strength of recommendation Category Evidence from: Category Directly based on: 1A Meta-analysis of RCTs 1B At least one RCT A Category 1 evidence 2A At least one controlled study without randomisation B Category 2 evidence or extrapolated recommendation 2B At least one quasi-experimental study from category 1 evidence 3 Descriptive studies, such as comparative, C Category 3 evidence or extrapolated recommendation correlation or case-control studies from category 1 or 2 evidence 4 Expert committee reports or opinions and/ D Category 4 evidence or extrapolated recommendation or clinical experience of respected authorities from category 2 or 3 evidence
  5. 5. Downloaded from on 12 September 20091148 Jordan, Arden, Doherty, et alFigure 1 Toxicity profile of the treatment modalities based on expert opinion (23 experts).Assessment of the propositions populations of otherwise fit subjects with knee OA. TheseThe propositions are ranked in order of importance as data therefore are not directly applicable to the wholedebated by the expert opinion panel. population of subjects with OA. Those studies that have examined the predictors of response to treatment often have1. The optimal management of knee OA requires a limited statistical power, and therefore results are often inconclusive. An example is the presence of an effusioncombination of non-pharmacological and predicting a response to intra-articular steroids where twopharmacological treatment modalities studies have shown conflicting results21 22(QS 22, 17). OneAlthough this statement is logical and represents common RCT involving 84 patients confirmed short term symptomclinical practice, there is little direct evidence from appro- benefit of steroid over placebo and found a better outcome inpriately designed factorial RCTs to support this statement.There is, however, a wealth of indirect evidence from RCTs in those with an effusion. However, a randomised crossoverwhich all subjects were receiving analgesics or NSAIDs at study of methylprednisolone versus saline found no clinicalbaseline that non-pharmacological treatments offer addi- predictors of response, suggesting that steroid injectiontional benefit over and above analgesic or NSAID usage. should not be reserved just for those with effusion alone.These have demonstrated that exercise programmes15(quality As well as the expected relative benefits, potential dangersscore (QS) 26), physiotherapy16 (QS 26), weight loss and costs of the intervention must clearly be taken intocombined with exercise17(QS 21), education18 (QS 12), and account. This has relevance to both medical and surgicalwedged insoles19 20(QS 10, 11) offer additional benefit when interventions. The holistic approach to the patient isused with an analgesic or NSAID regimen. There is therefore universally accepted: it has obvious validity but no researcha reasonable evidence base to support this statement (1B). based justification specific to knee OA.2. The treatment of knee OA should be tailored 3. Non-pharmacological treatment of knee OAaccording to: should include, education, exercise, appliances (sticks, insoles, knee bracing) and weight reductionN Knee risk factors (obesity, adverse mechanical factors, physical activity) Education and provision of information should form an integral part of the management of any chronic disease. ThisN General risk factors (age, comorbidity, polypharmacy) is a professional obligation and should include details of theN Level of pain intensity and disability disease, its investigations, and management. PractitionersN Sign of inflammation—for example, effusion should tailor any treatment to the individual needs ofN Location and degree of structural damage. the patient and this concept can be discussed within education. Several large RCTs and a meta-analysis haveThis statement represents ideal practice and includes clinical demonstrated the benefits of different educational techni-markers that are often used to guide clinical decisions. ques in reducing pain and increasing coping skills, but withClinical trials predominantly investigate the efficacy of one or little impact on function in patients with knee OA.23two specific monotherapies in highly selected homogeneous Education has also been shown to result in fewer visits
  6. 6. Downloaded from on 12 September 2009EULAR Recommendations 2003 for management of knee OA 1149 Table 4 Summary of the effect size versus placebo, quality scores, and number of studies identified Quality Quality Number Positive to score score Effect size versus Intervention of studies placebo (range) (median) placebo Acetaminophen/paracetamol 5 1/1 17–26 20 Opioid analgesic/other 6 2/3 11–24 19 NSAID Conventional NSAID 130 27/31 5–27 17 0.47, 0.50, 0.76, 0.96, Coxibs 5 4/4 18–25 23 0.50 Antidepressant 1 1/0 16 – Topical NSAID 9 5/7 18–26 22 20.05, 0.16, 0.31, 0.91, 1.03 Topical capsaicin 2 2/2 21, 26 0.41, 0.56 Sex hormones 2 0/1 15, 20 SYSADOA Glucosamine 8 4/6 14–27 24 0.43, 0.53, 1.02 Chondroitin 5 5/5 20–27 24 1.23, 1.37, 1.44, 1.50 Diacerein 1 1/1 22 22 ASU 3 3/3 21–24 23 0.32, 1.72 Nutrients 2 2/2 4,25 – 0.65 Herbal remedies 5 3/3 14–27 20 0.23, 1.32 Minerals/vitamins 1 0/1 24 24 Education 7 3/3 11–15 13 0.28, 0.35 Exercise 40 8/9 5–26 15 0.57, 0.59, 1.0 Telephone 3 1/1 16–18 18 1.09 Acupuncture 6 2/2 11–22 16 0.25, 1.74 Laser 2 1/1 12,17 0.87 Pulsed EMF 2 2/2 18,19 Spa 5 3/3 12–17 15 1.0 TENS 7 6/6 12–22 17 0.76 Ultrasound 1 0/1 20 Weight loss 2 1/1 11,15 Insoles 5 0/1 3–15 11 Orthotic device (knee brace/ 9 3/3 7–20 15 patella tape/elastic bandage IA Hyaluronic acid 35 18/20 9–26 20 0.0, 0.04, 0.48, 0.49, 0.88, 0.9 IA Corticosteroid 9 6/7 4–22 16 1.27 Lavage/tidal irrigation 7 1/1 11–25 18 0.84 Arthroscopy 14 – 6–17 10 Osteotomy 26 – 5–15 11 Unicompartmental knee 15 – 4–16 11 replacement Total knee replacement 35 – 4–23 13primary care and therefore also has a cost implication. In a programme and an aquatic programme, although bothstudy of 211 patients with knee OA, 80% of the costs of showed significant improvements in pain and function35(QSdelivering effective self care education were offset within a 17). Importantly, some of these studies report long termyear by the reduced frequency and costs of primary care improvements (6–18 months). ES for exercise ranged fromvisits.24 Education techniques shown to be effective include 0.57 to 1.0.individualised education packages25 (QS 12), regular tele- One RCT in 119 patients demonstrated that the pain andphone calls26 (QS 17), group education27(QS 20), patient function of patients with varus knee OA using a knee bracecoping skills28 (QS 13), and spouse assisted coping skills improved significantly compared with those who did not usetraining29 (QS 15). a brace36(QS 20). An RCT comparing laterally wedged insoles There is evidence from large RCTs that joint-specific with neutrally wedged insoles showed no statistical differ-exercises reduce pain and improve function in patients ence between the two groups. However, the group usingwith knee OA. However, the optimal exercise regimen has laterally wedged insoles had a greater reduction in NSAIDnot yet been determined. Exercise can be divided into use together with increased compliance37(QS 25). Twojoint-specific strength and range of motion exercises and controlled studies of insoles19 20 (QS 10, 11) demonstratedgeneral aerobic conditioning and can be either directly an improvement over an analgesic control group. A study ofsupervised on land or water or offered as a home based, self cross over within subjects suggested that the pain relief anddirected programme. A two centre RCT of 439 older patients improvement in function reported might be due in part to thewith knee OA demonstrated that the cumulative incidence of reduced external varus moment and medial compartmentdisability for activities of daily living was lower in both load short term38(QS15). No RCTs have examined walkingexercise groups (aerobic exercise and resistance exercise) sticks or elastic bandage in the management of knee OA.than in a no-exercise control group30(QS 24). The effective- Application of an elastic bandage in 68 patients reduced kneeness of home exercise on knee OA has been explored in pain significantly in a short term study of cross over withinseveral RCTs, showing reduced pain scores and improved subjects 39(QS 20).function15 31 32 (QS 26, 26, 20). Aerobic and isokinetic exercise Although recommended to virtually all patients with kneeregimens have also been effective in improving function and OA, the relationship between weight reduction and knee OAgait, and decreasing pain16 27 33 34 (QS 26, 20, 19, 25). No has only been assessed formally in two studies. A large cohortdifferences were found between a land based exercise study40 (QS 15) showed that weight loss reduced the risk of
  7. 7. Downloaded from on 12 September 20091150 Jordan, Arden, Doherty, et al Table 5 Level of evidence based on the literature search, and strength of recommendation based on both evidence and expert opinion Level of Effect size Strength of Intervention evidence Range recommendation Acetaminophen/paracetamol 1B A Opioid analgesics 1B B NSAIDs Conventional NSAID 1A 0.47–0.96 A Coxibs 1B 0.5 A Antidepressant 1B B Topical NSAID 1A 20.05–1.03 A Topical capsaicin 1A 0.41–0.56 A Sex hormones 2B C SYSADOA Glucosamine 1A 0.43–1.02 A Chondroitin 1A 1.23–1.50 A Diacerein 1B B ASU 1B 0.32–1.72 B Nutrients 1B 0.65 B Herbal remedies 1B 0.23–1.32 B Minerals/vitamins 1B C Education 1A 0.28–0.35 A Exercise 1B 0.57–1.0 A Telephone 1B 1.09 B Acupuncture 1B 0.25–1.74 B Laser 1B 0.87 B Pulsed EMF 1B B Spa therapy 1B 1.0 C TENS 1B 0.76 B Ultrasound 1B C Weight loss 1B B Insoles 1B B Orthotic device (knee brace/ 1B B patella tape/elastic bandage IA Hyaluronic acid 1B 0.0–0.9 B IA Corticosteroid 1B 1.27 A Lavage/tidal irrigation 1B 0.84 B Arthroscopy¡debridement 1B C Osteotomy 3 C UCKR 3 C TKR 3 Cdeveloping symptomatic knee OA in women. A more recent with knee OA, but are only supported by relatively weakRCT demonstrated that weight loss combined with exercise evidence, with the exception of knee bracing which has levelreduces pain and improves function in older adults for at (1B) evidence for reduction in pain and improvement inleast six months; unfortunately, no group had weight loss function.alone17(QS 21). In summary, there is good evidence that education (1A) 4. Paracetamol is the oral analgesic to try first and,and exercise regimens (1B) reduce pain in knee OA and that if successful, the preferred long term oral analgesicexercise regimens also improve function. The use of Paracetamol is frequently used as self medication for theappliances and weight loss seem sensible options in patients treatment of mild to moderate pain. It is the recommended Table 6 Final set of 10 recommendations based on both evidence and expert opinion 1 The optimal management of knee OA requires a combination of non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatment modalities 2 The treatment of knee OA should be tailored according to: (a) Knee risk factors (obesity, adverse mechanical factors, physical activity) (b) General risk factors (age, comorbidity, polypharmacy) (c) Level of pain intensity and disability (d) Sign of inflammation—for example, effusion (e) Location and degree of structural damage 3 Non-pharmacological treatment of knee OA should include regular education, exercise, appliances (sticks, insoles, knee bracing), and weight reduction 4 Paracetamol is the oral analgesic to try first and, if successful, the preferred long term oral analgesic 5 Topical applications (NSAID, capsaicin) have clinical efficacy and are safe 6 NSAIDs should be considered in patients unresponsive to paracetamol. In patients with an increased gastrointestinal risk, non-selective NSAIDs and effective gastroprotective agents, or selective COX 2 inhibitors should be used 7 Opioid analgesics, with or without paracetamol, are useful alternatives in patients in whom NSAIDs, including COX 2 selective inhibitors, are contraindicated, ineffective, and/or poorly tolerated 8 SYSADOA (glucosamine sulphate, chondroitin sulphate, ASU, diacerein, hyaluronic acid) have symptomatic effects and may modify structure 9 Intra-articular injection of long acting corticosteroid is indicated for flare of knee pain, especially if accompanied by effusion 10 Joint replacement has to be considered in patients with radiographic evidence of knee OA who have refractory pain and
  8. 8. Downloaded from on 12 September 2009EULAR Recommendations 2003 for management of knee OA 1151 Table 7 Research agenda based on expert opinion 1 Clinical predictors of response to pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions need to be determined 2 There is a need to establish a set of recommendations for uniform and full reporting of clinical trials in knee OA 3 Studies should include quality of life and function as well as pain, as outcome measures 4 New imagining techniques—that is, MRI and ultrasound require validation for the diagnosis and follow up of knee OA 5 Randomised controlled trials should more fully assess non-pharmacological interventions for knee OA 6 The most efficient and effective exercises need to be determined 7 What is the effect on tissue, efficacy, and safety of long term COX 2 inhibition 8 The clinical relevance of structural modification requires evaluation 9 The indications for joint replacement need to be determined 10 There is a need to examine the efficacy and cost utility of surgical techniquesinitial oral analgesic for knee OA in published guidelines general practice52 suggest good safety (adverse events ,1.5%)(ACR, RCP, EULAR). However, few studies have directly with local skin reactions the principal side effect, and oneassessed the efficacy of paracetamol in knee OA and those large case-control study has found no association betweenthat have are either of poor quality or have small patient topical NSAIDs and upper gastrointestinal bleeding ornumbers. A six week RCT in just 25 patients41 (QS 21) perforation.53showed a significant improvement in pain at rest with Topical capsaicin (a treatment which reversibly desensi-paracetamol compared with placebo. One four week RCT tises nociceptive C fibres by acting on the VR-1 vaniloidshowed that paracetamol 4 g/day was as effective as receptors) is increasingly used in OA. There is good evidenceibuprofen (up to 2400 mg/day)42 (QS 26). Re-evaluation of for its efficacy in knee OA from an RCT, and it would appearthese data demonstrated that even severe knee pain its efficacy is maintained54 (QS 21). ES ranges from 0.41 toresponded equally to paracetamol and ibuprofen43(QS 17). 0.56. No systemic side effects are reported.Another RCT showed that paracetamol could be used There is (1B) evidence for the efficacy and use of topicaleffectively in doses of up to 2600 mg/day for two years NSAIDs and capsaicin in the management of knee OA andwithout significant adverse outcomes; it also showed that the these treatments have a good safety record.efficacy of paracetamol was similar to that of naproxen750 mg/day. This study had a high rate of withdrawals in 6. NSAIDs should be considered in patientsboth treatment arms, and the authors suggested that neither unresponsive to paracetamol. In patients with andrug was satisfactory for the treatment of OA44(QS 23). The increased gastrointestinal risk, non-selectiveissue of efficacy is clouded by the fact that most RCTs useparacetamol as escape analgesia, converting monotherapy NSAIDs and effective gastroprotective agents, ortrials to partial adjunctive studies. There are few drug selective COX 2 inhibitors should be usedinteractions and no common contraindications to the use of There is good evidence that NSAIDs are more efficacious thanparacetamol, including in the elderly. paracetamol for some patients, but the statement that they In summary, there is evidence (1B) that paracetamol is should be used in patients in whom paracetamol has failed,effective in the treatment of knee OA and that in many although attractive, does not have an evidence base.patients it is comparable with ibuprofen in the short term Unfortunately, there are no trials using failure of pain reliefand almost as efficacious as naproxen. There is also evidence when treated with paracetamol as entry criteria for the trial.(1B) that paracetamol can be taken safely over the long term. With increasing focus on the low grade inflammatoryClearly, a drug that is both safe and commonly effective component of OA, NSAIDs would appear to be logical drugsshould be considered early in the management of knee OA in patients unresponsive to paracetamol, particularly in theand, if effective, as an integral component of long term pain presence of clinically overt synovitis. However, there is nocontrol. direct evidence base to support this statement. Numerous studies have shown that oral NSAIDs are better than placebo There has been much recent controversy about the (ES median 0.50, range 0.47–0.96), confirming the efficacy ofgastrointestinal safety of paracetamol, particularly as com- NSAIDs in the management of knee OA. A Cochrane reviewpared with NSAIDs. A recent editorial covers this issue well, examining the relative efficacy of different NSAIDs used inwith a review of the current available literature.45 It concludes knee OA concluded that despite the large number ofthat currently the weight of clinical evidence supports the publications in this area, many trials were poorly designed,better overall gastrointestinal safety profile of paracetamol and there was no evidence to distinguish between thecompared with non-selective NSAIDs. efficacy of equivalent recommended doses of conventional NSAIDs.555. Topical applications (NSAID, capsaicin) have A few trials have directly compared paracetamol andclinical efficacy and are safe NSAIDs. They have generally, but not exclusively, found thatTopical agents are commonly used, well tolerated and liked NSAIDs have better efficacy but increased gastrointestinalby patients. Two RCTs comparing topical diclofenac with side effects. In a two year RCT44 (QS 23) paracetamol wasplacebo, in 70 and 155 patients respectively, recorded compared with naproxen in 178 patients. Naproxen led tosignificant benefit over placebo for pain relief46 47 (QS 24, greater reductions in pain than paracetamol (ES 0.32 after22). Interestingly, two RCTs comparing eltenac gel with 42 days and 0.45 after 730 days). Patient drop out was highplacebo, involving 290 and 237 patients respectively, showed (65%) owing to lack of efficacy in the paracetamol arm and toa significant improvement in pain relief only in those with adverse events in the naproxen arm. A further trial of 382severe knee OA48 49 (QS 26, 25). Studies comparing diclofenac patients comparing rofecoxib, celecoxib, and paracetamolgel with ketoprofen gel50(QS 19) and piroxicam gel with oral demonstrated that more patients discontinued treatmentibuprofen51 (QS 20) showed equal efficacy between treat- early with paracetamol because of lack of efficacy and thatments. The ES for this form of treatment varies widely with a significantly more pain relief was obtained with the coxibsmedian ES of 0.31 (range 20.05 to 1.03). Topical NSAIDs than with paracetamol; side effect profiles were similar for allhave a good safety record. Large surveillance studies in treatment arms56(QS 23).
  9. 9. Downloaded from on 12 September 20091152 Jordan, Arden, Doherty, et al There has been speculation that COX 2 selective agents are wide variability throughout Europe in the use of these drugsmore beneficial than conventional NSAIDs, particularly in and how they are classified. In the United Kingdom, forthose at higher risk of adverse gastrointestinal side effects. instance, they are classified as a health food supplementLarge trials comparing COX 2 inhibitors with placebo and rather than a prescribable drug, are available only over theconventional NSAIDs have shown their superiority over counter, and are very widely self administered. Thoseplacebo and a similar efficacy to conventional NSAIDs for SYSADOA (for example, glycosaminoglycan polysulphates)pain relief but with a reduction—up to 50%—in perforation, that are no longer in use throughout Europe have not beenulcers, and bleeding. An RCT comparing celecoxib, diclo- included in this analysis. The other products have beenfenac, and placebo in 600 patients over six weeks showed assessed individually.that both drugs were better than placebo in improving pain Both chondroitin sulphate and glucosamine sulphate havebut showed no difference between active treatments. There been the focus of a meta-analysis, including all studies up towere more gastrointestinal side effects with diclofenac than 1999.61 This report concluded that trials of chondroitin andcelecoxib and the coxib was better tolerated57 (QS21); there glucosamine compounds demonstrated moderate to largewas an ES of 0.5 in comparison with placebo. A further study effects on pain and disability in OA compared with placebo;comparing varying doses of celecoxib with naproxen and however, these effects may have been exaggerated byplacebo in 1003 patients found equal efficacy between the publication bias. These products are also safe and associatedactive treatment groups compared with placebo and an with few side effects. The ES calculated for chondroitinincreased drop out rate in the placebo group due to lack of sulphate was 0.78 and for glucosamine 0.44 in this meta-efficacy; in this study, however, the incidence of minor analysis, where they combined all the studies.gastrointestinal related adverse events was similar for In an RCT assessing the efficacy of chondroitin sulphateconventional NSAIDs and coxib, but one case of acute compared with diclofenac in 146 patients, a promptergastrointestinal bleeding occurred in the naproxen reduction of clinical symptoms was seen in patients treatedgroup58(QS25). Current reports show that cardiorenal adverse with the NSAID, but these returned after the end ofevents occur equally in patients treated with non-selective treatment; chondroitin, however, had a slower onset ofNSAIDs and coxibs. action on the therapeutic response, but this lasted for up to A recent Cochrane review, including publications up to three months after the end of treatment62 (QS20). A moreJuly 2002, examined the effectiveness of interventions for the recent RCT63(QS 27) demonstrated the benefit of chondroitinprevention of NSAID induced upper gastrointestinal toxi- over placebo in 130 patients with knee OA and again showedcity.59 This included 40 RCTs and concluded that all doses of persisting efficacy for up to one month after treatment.misoprostol significantly reduced the risk of endoscopic Two RCTs have compared the effect of glucosamineulcers. Standard doses of histamine-2 receptor antagonists sulphate with ibuprofen. The first, conducted over an eighteffectively reduced the risk of endoscopic duodenal but not week period, showed that ibuprofen was more effective atgastric ulcers. Double doses of histamine-2 receptor antago- decreasing pain scores within the first two weeks ofnists and protein pump inhibitors effectively reduced the risk treatment, but at eight weeks, glucosamine sulphate wasof endoscopic duodenal and gastric ulcers, and were better significantly better64(QS 22). The second, conducted over fourtolerated than misoprostol. weeks, demonstrated that ibuprofen had a faster onset of There is therefore (1A) evidence to support the use of action, but at four weeks the pain reduction and disabilityNSAIDs in the treatment of knee OA. In those with an were similar65(QS 23). Two other placebo controlled RCTsincreased risk of gastrointestinal complications the evidence have been published in addition to those assessed in thesupports the use of either a COX 2 selective agent or meta-analysis. Ninety eight older patients with moderate tothe addition of a gastroprotective agent to a conventional severe knee OA showed no difference in pain or functionNSAID. with glucosamine sulphate compared with placebo over a two month period66 (QS 24). However, 106 patients with mild to7. Opioid analgesics, with or without paracetamol, moderate knee OA showed delayed progression of joint spaceare useful alternatives in patients in whom NSAIDs, loss and improvement in pain and function scores asincluding COX 2 selective inhibitors, are compared with placebo over a three year period67(QS 26).contraindicated, ineffective, and/or poorly This had led to the suggestion that glucosamine sulphatetolerated could be used as a structure modifying agent in knee OA.There is little direct evidence to fully support this statement. Only one RCT has examined the efficacy of glucosamine andHowever, there is indirect evidence and the use of opioid chondroitin sulphate in combination; in 93 patients, thoseanalgesics is widely accepted in everyday clinical practice with mild to moderate knee OA had significant improvementwhen other therapeutic options are limited. Indirect evidence in the Lequesne index of knee severity score at four andwould support that there is increased efficacy of pain control six months; those with severe disease had no improvementin those patients not entirely responsive to paracetamol and/ over placebo68(QS 24). An ES of 0.53–0.87 was calculated foror NSAIDs. It would be prudent, however, to counsel on the glucosamine sulphate, excluding those used in the meta-increased risk of adverse side effects, particularly in the analysis.elderly, and potential dependence when using this group of Only one RCT of diacerein in patients with knee OA wasdrugs. An RCT of 90 patients showed that treatment of knee identified. At doses of 100 mg daily, significant differences inOA with tramadol allowed reduction of the naproxen dose pain and handicap scores were seen compared with placebo.among those patients with naproxen-responsive pain60 (QS At higher doses, a significant number of adverse events were19). There is therefore (1B) evidence to support this seen69(QS 22).statement. The introduction of hyaluronic acid (HA) has been viewed as an advance in the management of knee OA. Its role in pain8. SYSADOA (glucosamine sulphate, chondroitin reduction, functional improvement, and in disease modifica-sulphate, ASU, diacerein, and hyaluronic acid) have tion in knee OA has been assessed. Several HA preparationssymptomatic effects and may modify structure exist, in two main categories: high molecular and lowSYSADOA is a generic term used for symptomatic slow acting molecular weight. It has been postulated that those prepara-drugs for OA, and includes glucosamine sulphate and related tions with a high molecular weight may have a superiorcompounds, chondroitin sulphate, and diacerein. There is effect. A 12 week RCT comparing a high molecular HA with
  10. 10. Downloaded from on 12 September 2009EULAR Recommendations 2003 for management of knee OA 1153low molecular HA showed that the higher molecular weight 10. Joint replacement has to be considered inproduct was significantly better in relieving pain70 (QS 21). patients with radiographic evidence of knee OA whoUntil February 2002, 39 trials have assessed the efficacy of have refractory pain and disabilityHA for knee OA. Twenty trials assessed HA versus placebo Joint replacement is an irreversible intervention used in thoseand 18 of these were positive. RCTs that allowed calcula- for whom other treatment modalities have failed and whotion of ES recorded significant reductions in pain against generally have more severe disease. The effectiveness of totalplacebo (ES 0.04, 0.49, 0.88, 0.9) over periods of 60 days to knee replacement (TKR) in knee OA has a well establishedone year71–74 (QS 22,19,23,14). One study recorded functional place in those severely incapacitated. A systematic reviewimprovements on the Lequesne index (ES 0.36) over one concluded that TKR was a safe and effective treatment inyear.70 improving quality of life,80 as well as reducing pain and Few trials have directly examined the effect on structure improving function. The evidence base to support thismodification. One RCT looked at arthroscopic changes at statement is built wholly on class 3 evidence from observa-baseline and after one year; less deterioration was seen over tional and retrospective analyses, often using prosthesisone year when treated with HA, and the HA group also scored survival as the primary outcome measure.higher for quality of life and reduced NSAID use during the A detailed review of surgery for knee OA identified 154period of study.75 Another study demonstrated a reduction in studies of 37 different tricompartmental prostheses in 9879the need for intra-articular steroid injections over a one year people (63% with osteoarthritis OA).81 Good or excellentfollow up period; the authors suggested a possible structure outcomes for pain and function were reported in 89% ofmodifying effect by reducing flares.71 people up to five years after surgery. Unicompartmental and Studies examining possible predictors of response are bicompartmental prostheses were also reviewed and showedfew. Patients over 60 years with important functional similar findings. The review concluded that all forms of kneeimpairment as documented by the Lesquesne index were replacement improve quality of life.associated with the greater efficacy of HA in one The general consensus among orthopaedic surgeons onstudy76(QS 26). A retrospective study found that the response indications for an operative procedure, carried out by a postalto HA was statistically influenced by structural severity of the survey, were (a) severe daily pain and (b) x ray evidence ofknee OA—those with less severe disease did better, and those joint space narrowing.82 There are no evidence based guide-with an effusion at baseline did worse77(QS 18). It is lines to support this, however.noteworthy that most trials investigating intra-articular HA No RCTs have compared TKR with non-surgical interven-exclude severe OA. tions. Although it is acknowledged that difficulties with In summary, there is evidence to support the efficacy of HA study design may limit randomised studies on surgicalin the management of knee OA both for pain reduction (1B) treatments, there are areas that should be explored, includingand functional improvement (1B). However, although pain predictors of response, indications for joint replacement, andrelief may be obtained for several months, rather than for the effect of differences in surgical technique or jointseveral weeks as with steroid, this benefit may be offset by its prosthesis on long term outcomes. Moreover, postoperativeslower onset of action and by the requirement of a course of outcome assessment should be carried out by an investigator3–5 weekly injections with the logistical and cost issues that independent of the surgeon who has performed the opera-that entails. There is minimal evidence for a role in disease tion.modification. The term SYSADOA covers a range of agents.There is growing evidence to support the use of two of these DISCUSSIONagents for their symptomatic effects—namely, glucosamine These clinical recommendations are based on the updatedsulphate (1A) and chondroitin sulphate (1A), but for the evidence obtained by reviewing the literature up to andothers the evidence is weak or absent. including February 2002. The publication also seeks to accommodate all commonly used treatment modalities used9. Intra-articular injection of long acting in knee OA. The data collected and provided are restricted tocorticosteroid is indicated for flare of knee pain, the knee only, therefore, and those papers in which summaryespecially if accompanied by effusion statistics could not be dissected from the other non-knee dataIntra-articular corticosteroid injections in knee OA have been were excluded. Equally, current recommendations cannot beused to relieve pain and inflammation for many years. The extrapolated to OA at other sites.effects of steroids in knee OA have been assessed in a number The main purpose of the paper is to act as a resourceof studies. One RCT concluded that steroid was more effective document for secondary care, with the aim that eachthan placebo for pain relief over seven days (ES 1.27) in individual country should use the information generated topatients with knee OA, not all of whom had effusions78(QS produce their own set of management guidelines and19). Another RCT involving 98 patients showed a significant algorithms for treatment in primary care. As noted in thedifference in pain relief and functional outcomes between 2000 recommendations, there is often discordance betweenintra-articular steroid and placebo after one and four weeks expert opinion and trial evidence, confirming that our ownbut no difference at 12 and 24 weeks79(QS 24). One RCT experience and local situations are important in determininginvolving 84 patients confirmed short term symptom benefit individual treatment selection.of steroid over placebo and found a better outcome in those Reviewing the literature has reinforced the need towith an effusion21(QS 22). However, a randomised crossover investigate predictors of response to individual treatmentsstudy of methylprednisolone versus saline found no clinical as the information relating to this important aspect is limited.predictors of response, suggesting that steroid injection Also, there is a lack of information about pooled/combinationshould not be reserved just for those with effusion treatments, which would reflect everyday clinical practice.alone22(17). We still remain ignorant about the difference between In conclusion there is evidence (1B) that intra-articular efficacy (trial data) and clinical effectiveness (how useful ininjections of corticosteroid are effective but give relatively practice) for many of these treatments.short lived benefit. The evidence for predictors of response, A heterogeneous array of outcome measures was usedhowever, remains unclear and further studies are needed to which makes comparison between different publicationsanswer this question. using the same treatment difficult. A more standardised
  11. 11. Downloaded from on 12 September 20091154 Jordan, Arden, Doherty, et alway of assessing the various treatments needs to be adopted Leonardo Punzi, Universita degli studi di Padova, Policlinicointernationally. Universitario - VIII Piano, Via Giustiniani, 2, 35128 Padova, Italy The task force attempted to review the evidence for efficacy Umberto Serni, Divisione di Reumatologia, Istituto Ortopedicoof individual treatments and to give an additional more Toscano, Florence, Italy Berndt Swoboda, Ortopedik Poliklinik der Universitat Erlangen- ¨subjective summary of expert opinion on the overall safety Nuremberg, D-91054 Erlangen, Germanyand usefulness. The task force made no attempt to design a Gust Verbruggen, Rheumatology Unit, U.Z R.U.G., B-7000 Gent,more didactic algorithm for management, even though it was Belgiumrealised that such a simplistic approach might have more Irena Zimmermann-Gorska, Department of Rheumatology andimmediate impact on the behaviour of health professionals. Rehabilitation, Karol Marcinkowski University of Medical Sciences,Many patient centred factors are important in determining 28 Czerwca 1956r, 135/147, 61-545 Poznan, Polandthe selection of treatments for individual patients with kneeOA—for example, psychosocial factors and OA status; REFERENCEScomorbid disease and drugs; patient beliefs about their knee 1 Peat G, McCarney R, Croft P. Knee pain and osteoarthritis in older adults: aOA; patient beliefs and preferences for its management; and review of community burden and current use of health care. Ann Rheum Disprevious patient experiences of treatments and health 2001;60:91–7. 2 Guccione AA, Felson DT, Anderson JJ, Anthony JM, Zhang Y, Wilson PW,professionals. The costs and logistics of delivering specific et al. The effects of specific medical conditions on the functional limitations ofinterventions (for example, physiotherapy, weekly knee elders in the Framingham study. Am J Publ Health 1994;84:351–8.injections of HA) are also important. Therefore the manage- 3 Murray CJL, Lopez AD. The global burden of disease. Geneva: World Health Organisation, 1997.ment plan for patients with knee OA has to be individualised, 4 Cooper C. Epidemiology of osteoarthritis. In: Klippel JH, Dieppe PA, eds.reviewed, and adjusted in the light of the patient’s response Rheumatology, 2nd ed. London: Mosby, 1998:1–20.and adherence and will vary between patients and between 5 Dieppe P, Basler HD, Chard J, Croft P, Dixon J, Hurley M, et al. Kneelocations. Optimistically, however, the findings of the current replacement surgery for osteoarthritis: effectiveness, practice variations, indications and possible determinants of utilisation. Rheumatology (Oxford)EULAR Recommendations show that there is a wide variety 1999;38:73–83.of treatments from which to choose for people with knee OA. 6 Felson DT. Osteoarthritis new insights. Part 1: the disease and its risk factors.There is no single right and wrong approach and each health Ann Intern Med 2000;133:637–9. 7 Cooper C, Snow S, McAlindon TE, Kellingray S, Stuart B, Coggon D, et al. Riskprofessional must decide with each patient the most factors for the incidence and progression of radiographic knee osteoarthritis.appropriate management plan at a particular time and for Arthritis Rheum 2000;43:995–1000.that location. It is hoped that discussion within healthcare 8 Spector TD, Cicuttini F, Baker J, Loughlin J, Hart D. Genetic influences in women: a twin study. BMJ 1996;312:940–3.provider groups of the treatment options outlined in this 9 Scott DL. Guidelines for the diagnosis, investigation and management ofdocument will improve knowledge and interest in the osteoarthritis of the hip and knee. Report of a Joint Working Group of themanagement of knee OA and result in higher standards of British Society for Rheumatology and the Research Unit of the Royal College ofcare. Physicians. J R Coll Physicians Lond 1993;27:391–6. 10 American College of Rheumatology subcommittee on osteoarthritis guidelines. Recommendations for the medical management of osteoarthritis ofACKNOWLEDGEMENTS the hip and knee. Arthritis Rheum 2000;43:1905–15.We thank Bristol Myers Squibb and, in particular, Dr Manuela Le 11 Pendleton A, Arden N, Dougados M, Doherty M, Bannwarth B, Bijlsma JW, et al.Bars, for financial and logistical support. EULAR recommendations for the management of knee osteoarthritis: report of a task force of the Standing Committee for International Clinical Studies Including Therapeutic Trials (ESCISIT). Ann Rheum Dis 2000;59:936–44.MEMBERS OF TASK FORCE 12 Downs SH, Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment ofNigel Arden, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton S016 6YD, the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies ofUK health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health 1998;52:377–84.Bernard Bannwarth, Laboratoire de Therapeutique, Universite ´ ´ 13 Schwarzer R. Meta-analysis programs version 5.0 Berlin, Germany: RalfBordeaux II, 33076 Bordeaux Cedex, France Schwarzer Computer Programs for Meta-Analysis 2000 ( Bijlsma, Department of Rheumatology and Immunology, gesund/meta_e.htm).University Hospital Utrecht, 3508 Utrecht GA, The Netherlands 14 Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. New York: Academic Press, 1977.Paul Dieppe, MRC Health Services Research Collaboration, University 15 Petrella RJ, Bartha C. Home based exercise therapy for older patients withof Bristol, Canynghe Hall, Whiteladies Road, Bristol BS8 2PR, UK knee osteoarthritis: a randomised controlled trial. J RheumatolMichael Doherty, Rheumatology Unit R.U.G., City Hospital, 2000;27:2215–21.Nottingham NG5 1PB, UK 16 Deyle GD, Henderson NE, Matekel RL, Ryder MG, Garber MB, Allison S.Maxime Dougados, Service de Rheumatologie B, Hopital Cochin, ˆ Effectiveness of manual physical therapy and exercise in osteoarthritis of the75014 Paris, France knee: a randomised controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 2000;132:173–81.Klaus-Peter Gunther, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University 17 Messier SP, Loeser RF, Mitchell MN, Valle G, Morgan TP, Rejeski WJ, et al. Exercise and weight loss in obese older adults with knee osteoarthritis: aof Dresden, D-Dresden, Germany preliminary study. J Am Geriatr Soc 2000;48:1062–72.Hans Hauselmann, Centre for Rheumatology and Bone Disease, 18 Mazzuca SA, Brandt KD, Katz BP, Chambers M, Byrd D, Hanna M. Effects ofClinic Im Park, Hirslanden Group, Bellariast. 38, CH 8038 Zurich, self-care education on the health status of inner-city patients with osteoarthritisSwitzerland of the knee [see comments]. Arthritis Rheum 1997;40:1466–74.Gabriel Herrero-Beaumont, Rheumatology Department, Clinique de 19 Tohyama H, Yasuda K, Kaneda K. Treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee withla Conception, 28040 Madrid, Spain heel wedges. Int Orthop 1991;15:31–3.Kelsey Jordan, Florence Cottage, 17 Dover Street, Southampton 20 Sasaki T, Yasuda K. Clinical evaluation of the treatment of osteoarthritic knees using a newly designed wedged insole. Clin Orthop 1985;221:181–7.SO146GG, UK 21 Gaffney VK, Ledingham J, Perry JD. Intra-articular triamcinolonePhaedon Kaklamanis, 16 Anaperon Polemon, 11521 Athens, Greece hexacetonide in knee osteoarthritis: factors influencing the clinical response. ¨Burkhard Leeb, NO Zentrum fur Rheumatology, Stockerau Hospital, ¨ Ann Rheum Dis 1995;54:379–81.A-2000 Stockerau, Austria 22 Jones A, Doherty M. Intra-articular corticosteroids are effective inMichel Lequesne, 31-33 rue Guillemot, 75014 Paris, France osteoarthritis but there are no clinical predictors of response. Ann Rheum Dis 1996;55:829–32.Stefan Lohmander, Deparment of Orthopaedics, University Hospital, 23 Superio-Cabuslay E, Ward MM, Lorig KR. Patient education interventions inS-22185 Lund, Sweden osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: a meta-analytic comparison withBernard Mazieres, Service de Rhumatologie, 1 avenue Jean Poulhes, ` nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug treatment. Arthritis Care ResCHU Rangueil, 31054 O, Cedex France 1996;9:292–301.Emilio Martin-Mola, Divisione di Reumatologia, Hosptial La Paz, 24 Mazzuca SA, Brandt KD, Katz BP, Hanna MP, Melfi CA. Reduced utilisation28046 Madrid, Spain and cost of primary care clinic visits resulting from self-care education for patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Arthritis RheumKarel Pavelka, Institute of Rheumatology, 12850 Praha 2, Czech 1999;42:1267–73.Republic 25 Mazzuca SA, Brandt KD, Katz BP, Chambers M, Byrd D, Hanna M. Effects ofAdrian Pendleton, 9 Prince Edward Drive, Stranmillis, Belfast self-care education on the health status of inner-city patients with osteoarthritisBT9 5GB, Northern Ireland of the knee [see comments]. Arthritis Rheum 1997;40:1466–